Bhasker Puntambekar vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1772 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION No.16947 of 2022
ORDER:

Seeking to declare the impugned order passed by respondent

No.2 vide Rc.No.A2/4487/2020 dated 08.11.2021 pertaining to

removal of the petitioner, as well as the suspension order vide

Rc.No.A2/4487/2020 dated 19.12.2020, as Founder Family Member

to respondent No.5-Sri Kalikadevi Temple, Uppuguda, Hyderabad,

the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and

Sri Kotha Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.5. With their consent, the Writ Petition itself is

disposed of at the admission stage.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 08.11.2021 passed by

respondent No.2 shows that the impugned order is passed on the

ground that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not

quite satisfactory to the authority concerned.

It is also evident from the record that even though the

petitioner has raised various contentions to the show cause notice,

none of those contentions were dealt with by the respondent No.2

while passing the impugned order. Except stating that the

explanation submitted by the petitioner was not quite satisfactory,

absolutely no other reasons are given by respondent No.2 in support

of the order dated 08.11.2021.

In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department,

Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers1,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

".... while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. ............ and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order ....

.... A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant."

In A. Janardhan Reddy vs. Mansing2, a learned Single Judge

of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad,

at para 8, held as under:

"8. The revenue authorities are bound to go into the question of extent of holding and pass a judicial order before entering details in any prescribed form such as Form No.1. The revenue authorities must be aware that their orders are liable to challenge in the High Court and that unless they are the detailed orders

1 (2010) 4 SCC 785 2 APLJ 1988 (1) (HC)

passed in a judicious manner, setting out the facts of the case, the contentions of the parties, the points arising in the case and the findings thereupon, the orders will be liable to be set aside."

Even though the learned senior counsel as well as the learned

Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel have

argued on other points, this Court is not inclined to go into all those

contentions as this Court is prima facie satisfied that the impugned

order needs to be set aside and remanded back to the authority on

the sole ground that in the impugned order absolutely no reasons

have been assigned by respondent No.2.

For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down

in the above referred judgments, the impugned order dated

08.11.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to

respondent No.2 for passing orders afresh duly considering the

explanation submitted by the petitioner and also passing a reasoned

order. It is needless to mention that before passing any order, the

petitioner shall be put on notice and given an opportunity of hearing

either in person or through his counsel.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 07-04-2022.

sur